Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> New Michigan Record? |
| Message Subject: New Michigan Record? | |||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I don't believe that the shape of a dead musky differing from the shape of a live musky, will do anything to the girth... Think about it: What weighs more...a pound of lead, or a pound of feathers? If the fish has a cross-sectional girth of 30" and it's cross-section is perfectly round where measured, what is it's girth if it is flattened? 30" The fact that the shape of the cross-section differs is irrelevant as far as I can tell. Thirty inches is thirty inches, and the law of conservation of mass is my God on that one. However the caveat is what happens to muscular tone and tissue perfusion when the fish dies. My medical training tells me that they must change by at least a small amount, like perhaps a couple per cent--simply because the muscles are now relaxed and the soft tissue is more "flaccid" as there is no effect attributable to either hydrostatic or hydrodynamic pressures. (The latter would be less important than the former in a system at equilibrium, since the net fluid movement is essentially zero.) So this is in my opinion why the girth differs slightly, as might be accounted for by Warren Wilkinson's "live fish" modification to the standard equation. It was seven years ago now, but I seem to recall that Warren told me he just did a whole bunch of calculations to eventually settle on the 0.75" value in his equation. Maybe Larry has a better recollection of that than I do though. TB | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Tom - Though the mass is the same a convex and parallel cylinder are going to have different maximum circumferences. If we take cylindrical balloon and fill it with water and lay it on the ground and the circumference is 4" and then we take the balloon and hold it by each end the water will expand the middle and the maximum circumference is going to be larger. The mass hasn't changed at all. | ||
| bucknuts |
| ||
Posts: 441 | Joe; Congrats on an amazing fish!! Awesome story, and to be able to share it with your fishing partners, is just icing on the cake!!!!! It's remarkable!!!! Think about it. Thousands and thousands of muskie nuts, pounding world-class waters, every day, and night. You go out and catch one of the biggest muskies, of all-time, on 8 lb test, with a little spinning rod. That is awesome!!!!!!! ` | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I'm not sure I buy your analogy, but I'm not quite sure I understand it well either Will... While a water balloon has a constant density across its volume (that of water), a muskellunge does not. Its internal structure is not of constant density--and therefore I think you'll find that it is MUCH less susceptible to (shape) deformation than a water balloon. So while the cross-sectional shape of a live vs. a dead musky will certainly change to some degree, I'd bet $1 it won't be all that significant. Hence I believe we'd see only a small differential between live and dead girths. The thing about Warren's equation is that the 0.75" factor is constant across ALL fish--it does not factor in the size of the fish. So the same equation tries to estimate the weight of a fish with a 20" girth in the same fashion as a fish of 30" girth. So where is the 0.75" value optimized for? Still even with that question, the difference isn't all that great. But I guess the FIRST question should be about whether or not it's even the right factor to use--how did Warren arrive at that value, for instance? If it was simply through experimentation, then of course there will be some bias...namely the different general body shapes of the fish, as Larry mentioned above. Bottom line: These calculators will only ever be one thing...estimations of the weight of a fish, based upon length and girth at the greatest diameter. I think you hit the nail on the head when you posted about needing a more complex set of girth measurements in order to account for variability in general body shape. In general though, I think that is what Kevin Kapuscinski had in mind for the project they were/are planning. Muskies across the range will have different general shapes, so why not see if we need a different set of equations for Kawartha Lakes than we do for Mille Lacs...or a different equation for the St. Lawrence than for Shoepack Lake? TB | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I agree that the change isn't going to be substantial, it's just something that I would like to know more about without killing a bunch of fish. Looking at the photos of this fish alive laying on a flat surface and then seeing her in person laying on a flat surface dead the shape was very different, girth too. The real wild card is, as Larry reminded me, will be how much the swim bladder expands. Edited by Will Schultz 4/24/2013 9:12 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yeah, I'm not sure how much influence the swim bladder would have on the live or dead girth. I'll have to defer to Larry on that one. Muskies are physostomes, so they have a connection between the swim bladder and the gut--so does this imply that the bladder will deflate as the fish is no longer alive to stop it from happening? Quite frankly I'm just not sure what the mechanism is whereby they prevent gas escape while they are alive. Obviously there is something, otherwise what good is the bladder, and why even have a duct? So there is undoubtedly some sort of sphincter apparatus/device to allow voluntary (or even involuntary) control of the swim bladder volume. Otherwise they'd be walleyes! TB | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom: Digging in my memory, but I'm sure Warren's formula had two girth subtractions: .75 inch for fish under 40 pounds and a full Inch for fish over 40 pounds. His "work" started after several friends and other anglers he heard about did the measurements in the boat and the Standard Formula indicated that they had their 40 pound (or 45 pound) goal. An hour later when they weighed only 38 pounds or so, they were disappointed. He discovered that remeasuring the girth of the then DEAD fish, they were 3/4 to one inch less than in the in the boat girth measurement while the fish was alive. As for "shapes" I think the researchers would be chasing a ghost for different populations as the multiple shapes I found could be found in most populations with fish of substantial size! | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | We're starting work this week on "version 2.0" of the weight calculator you and I worked on Larry. Do you know that it's been SEVEN years since we did that first version?!? Where does the time go... Anyway, we'll need to research that sort of thing and then we can incorporate any such changes into the next version. By the way--I think that we should take out the Hannon equation as it simply doesn't seem to be anywhere near the others--and it's always WAY off for anything of substantial length. I only included it because people were actually Mr. Hannon's esocid variation back when I was researching this whole thing. However since then it doesn't seem to be used much at all--so why even include it at all any more? Hopefully if it did nothing else the calculator we did illustrates the variations in equations out there, and effectively culls those that don't seem to apply to the species. So stay tuned for v2.0. Once we get it working for Windows, we will concentrate on versions for embedded systems as well--Android, iOS (iPad/iPhone), Mac, Linux...the whole nice yards. May as well make it available to as many people as possible. I am going to start a thread in the "Research" section of the forum so that we can discuss the things that should/should not be in the next version. This thread has been a GREAT discussion, and serves as a reminder of just why the calculator can be such a valuable tool. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/25/2013 10:30 AM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom: Definately take out the Hannon formula...never was valid. As for being a valuable tool, I will be convinced of that ONLY when the "estimates" are at or BELOW the actual weight. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Roger that... New thread created here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=85... TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| If Warren's formula calls for a girth subtraction of 1" for live muskies over 40 lbs. then the Michigan record should have had a 30" girth at the time of capture. Using his formula at that time would result in a weight estimation of 60.97 lbs which is still an overestimation of 2.97 or almost 3 lbs. Using the standard 800 formula on the fish while it was alive would result in a weight of 65.25 lbs. which is an unacceptable estimate. Considering that Warren's formula was developed using the girth of live muskies it should not be considered accurate when applied to a dead fish such as the Michigan record. If the girth of a muskie remains constant as Tom believes, changing the divisor to 840 on the standard 800 weight formula will result in a weight of 58 lbs., or the correct weight of the 29" x 59" Michigan record. If the girth decreased 1" on the muskie after death and the muskies live girth was 30", a divisor of 900 will give the fish the correct weight of 58 lbs. So maybe the formula G x G x L / 900 would be more accurate than Warren's formula for released muskies over 40 lbs. What do you guys think? | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I wouldn't say that I think the girth *doesn't* change (I think it does indeed), so much as I am just not sure how MUCH it changes. That's the point I meant to get across in my previous posts. That being said, I've started a new thread for discussion on the new version of the calculator. We could discuss stuff like program logic there as well, if you'd like. TB | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 4/25/2013 11:14 AM SNIP... If the girth of a muskie remains constant as Tom believes, changing the divisor to 840 on the standard 800 weight formula will result in a weight of 58 lbs., or the correct weight of the 29" x 59" Michigan record. If the girth decreased 1" on the muskie after death and the muskies live girth was 30", a divisor of 900 will give the fish the correct weight of 58 lbs. So maybe the formula G x G x L / 900 would be more accurate than Warren's formula for released muskies over 40 lbs. What do you guys think? I forgot to mention before that I believe Will said the correct dimensions of the fish are 58x29, so that's why I re-ran the calculations there on page 3. That will possibly change your idea of what the denominator might be. TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Tom, I incorrectly stated the length at 59" but the 840 divisor works on the correct length of 58". 29" x 29" x 58" / 840 = 58.06 lbs. 30" x 30" x 58 / 900 = 58 lbs. As you can see the divisors are correct and the 59" was nothing more than a typo. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Sorry...I didn't run your numbers, so no sweat on the typo. But while your denominator value might work for this ONE fish--it needs to be tested across many different potential sizes. That's the difference between a general equation, and a model that can be used to represent fish across their range--and it's one of the ideas behind the proposed research I've alluded to. When I worked a bit with Doug Hannon to revise his general bass equation for esocids, I made calculations on many potential fish sizes...and then tested those against the results from the other four equations. And you can see how far off that equation still is, LOL. So for now, these equations are the best we have for in a general sense. TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| LR: Yes Tom, Warren's formula adjustment takes some of it into account, but still often overstates weight. But since almost everyone uses the Standard Formula, most "estimates" are overstated. As I have noted before on three fish this past December, the Standard Formula greatly overstated fish weighed before release on an IGFA Certified scale: One calculated 55 pounds via formula and weighed 49 One calculated 58+ pounds via formula and weighed 51 One calculated 63.66 pounds via formula and weighed 58 Tom, The average overestimation of these muskies was 6.22 lbs. 29.76" x 29.76" x 58" / 800 = 64.21 lbs - 6.21 lbs. = 58 lbs. 29.76" x 29.76" x 58" / 885 = 58.04 lbs. (Formula for released muskies over 40 lbs. ... G x G x L / 885). Girth decreased .76" after death 29" x 29" x 59" / 840 = 58.06 lbs. (Revised formula for dead muskies over 40 lbs. ...G x G x L / 840). What do you think? | |||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Just for the sake of curiosity how deep were those fish when hooked? I'm questioning whether any formula can ever be truly accurate. If the formula is offset for overly expanded swim bladders it will understate fish that aren't just as the current formula overstates fish with overly expanded swim bladders. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think you've lost me... If you are talking (in your example calculations) about Mr. Seeberger's fish, why are you using 29.76"? I apologize if I've missed it somewhere that the fish was actually 29.76" in girth, but I was using 29.00" inches. So those are the numbers I plugged in to the calculator and then posted the screen shot. It appears from your numbers (if we are talking about the same fish) that you've added 0.76" to the girth. Where are you getting that from? Ah wait, I think I see. You've *added* the value in order to adjust the denominator to make the result come out right? If that's what you've done...no. I would disagree with that. All that is doing is doctoring the numbers to make the answer be more in agreement for this fish. So then how well would it work for the next fish, or the one after that...or the n'th fish into the future? So please elaborate on your intent there because I'm not sure I follow what you're going for. Thanks. TB | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Will Schultz - 4/25/2013 2:24 PM Just for the sake of curiosity how deep were those fish when hooked? I'm questioning whether any formula can ever be truly accurate. If the formula is offset for overly expanded swim bladders it will understate fish that aren't just as the current formula overstates fish with overly expanded swim bladders. I don't know if that's an issue with physostomes though Will. Maybe with physoclists like walleye, sure...I could see that. But the fact that muskellunge have the duct and can (presumably) voluntarily expel or replenish air from the bladder seems to indicate to me that they are also somehow "aware" that it needs to be done. Note that I'm not say they make a conscious effort to do it mind you--just that they likely have evolved with some way to adjust that pressure relatively quickly. Nature doesn't seem to do things by accident, so the fact that these fish still possess a duct to vent that bladder suggests that they have the ability to do it when needed. TB | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | tcbetka - 4/25/2013 3:30 PM Will Schultz - 4/25/2013 2:24 PM Just for the sake of curiosity how deep were those fish when hooked? I'm questioning whether any formula can ever be truly accurate. If the formula is offset for overly expanded swim bladders it will understate fish that aren't just as the current formula overstates fish with overly expanded swim bladders. I don't know if that's an issue with physostomes though Will. Maybe with physoclists like walleye, sure...I could see that. But the fact that muskellunge have the duct and can (presumably) voluntarily expel or replenish air from the bladder seems to indicate to me that they are also somehow "aware" that it needs to be done. Note that I'm not say they make a conscious effort to do it mind you--just that they likely have evolved with some way to adjust that pressure relatively quickly. Nature doesn't seem to do things by accident, so the fact that these fish still possess a duct to vent that bladder suggests that they have the ability to do it when needed. TBKeep in mind though we're talking about stressed fish and their ability to expel gasses may be compromised. I've had to manually burp muskies and in extreme cases used other methods to get fish with over-expanded air bladders swimming again. So, though they have the ability to do this it appears as it the system isn't as simple as it sounds. In each "problem" fish, they were caught at depths greater than 15'. Edited by Will Schultz 4/25/2013 2:46 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | How much of that gas has come up with them, versus air being gulped while the fish is at the surface and out of the water? When people are stressed, their respiratory rates often increase. They can also basically gulp air that ends up in their stomach. How much of that is going on in these fish? Instinct tells me that it might well be pretty significant. TB | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I've seen fish that never surfaced until they were in the net have problems with expanded bladders. Given time (brought up slowly) they appear to have no problem burping and I've watched fish do this. In addition to stress, if the gases in a fish double from 30' to the surface I would guess it's possible this additional internal pressure could cause problems with their ability to expel gases normally. Edited by Will Schultz 4/25/2013 3:19 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right...it's entirely possible that the rate of expansion is simply too great for them to overcome. I have no problem accepting that--but I'll bet that they also essentially swallow air while they are at the surface. TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Tom, The live examples from Mr. Ramsell show that the standard 800 weight formula overstates the weight of those three live muskies by an average of 6.22 lbs. A live girth of 29.76" will give the Seeberger muskie an overstated weight of 64.21 lbs. which is 6.21 lbs. more than the fish actually weighs and is consistent with the overstated weight of those other three 50 lb. class muskies Why would you plug in 29" when you've already stated that the girth WILL decrease after the fish is dead? What I'm doing is attempting to determine how much girth a 50 lb. class muskie lbs. would lose after death. The Seeberger fish is an excellent example to use because it's after death measurements were so carefully checked. When talking about 50 lb. class muskies we just don't have many that have been measured both alive and dead. Another example that comes to mind is the 28.5" x 53" 51.125 lb. muskie caught and kept by Tom Gelb. Tom reported the live girth on this fish to be somewhere between 29 and 30 " Adding .76" to the dead girth of 28.5 like I did with the Seeberger fish would mean a live girth of 29.26" 29.26" x 29.26" x 53" / 885 = 51.27 lbs. (actual weight 51.125 lbs. 28.5" x 28.5" x 53" / 840 = 51.249 lbs. (actual weight 51.125 lbs.). Enough said? I believe the 885 denominator will result in closer live weight estimates on 50 lb. class muskies than we've ever had before and if I'm ever fortunate enough to capture a muskie of this size this is what I plan on using before releasing the fish. There currently isn't a formula in existence that has proven itself reliable on 50 lb. class released muskies so why would you dismiss this and favor of the others when they've failed so miserably? | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Tom: What George is doing here is both reducing girth by .75 inch for 50 pound class fish, rather than the 1.0 inch Warren used for live fish, and then changing/increasing the divisor from 800 to 885 for released fish. Seems to work for both the Seeberger and Gelb muskies. However we only have an "approximate" of the live girth of the Gelb fish and no live girth measurement of the Seeberger muskie rendering this exercise moot. Those numbers however, do work better than a one-inch reduction of supposed live girth if the supposed live girth measurements are close to accurate. Changing the divisor to 840 for the two dead fish also seems to work, but is a small sample to be sure. But at least we know these two fish were accuratly measured and weighed. Lots of work yet to do! | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yeah, I figured out what he was up to after re-reading his post once or twice more. It's an interesting idea--and may be just as viable as the original work Warren did. Larry's right though in that the sample size is rather small, so it would be helpful to have more data. From a source code perspective, we can certainly have different program logic for fish of different sizes. For instance, if the fish is over some arbitrary weight (40 pounds has been suggested) you can simply have the code re-calculate the estimated weights based upon a new equation. There is virtually no end to what you can do with code, as it's nothing more than a tool used to solve a problem. So whatever solution proposed can be tested very quickly for a wide range of numbers, especially if you want to do something like iterating through a series of decrements to girth plotted against changes in the denominator. TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| First off, let me say that Larry is in error regarding Warren's formula. Warren did NOT reduce the girth 1" before applying the standard 800 formula to muskies over 40 lbs. Show me one source that shows this to be the case. The first source I checked was the 2000 Musky Hunters Almanac p. 228. "In recent years, based on the findings of Warren Wilkinson, past Director of Muskies Canada, developed an "Adjusted Standard Formula" that deducted 1/2-inch from the girth of muskies from 30 to 40 pounds and 3/4 inch from the girth of muskies more than 40 pounds." Secondly, my work is MORE viable than the original work done by Warren because I've taken the work a step further. Warren never accounted for the inherent weakness of the 800 divisor on DEAD muskies over 40 lbs. The first step in developing a formula for released muskies over 40 lbs should be to find a divisor that is accurate on dead muskies over 40 lbs. Notice below how much the dead girth needs to be reduced in order for the 800 divisor to work on these fish. Seeberger...28.29" x 28.29" x 58" / 800 = 58.02 lbs. (Actual dead girth and weight...29", 58 lbs.) Gelb...27.78" x 27.78" x 53" / 800 = 51.127 lbs. (Actual dead girth and weight...28.5", 51.125 lbs.) Seeberger...The actual dead girth exceeds the formula girth by .71" Gelb...The actual dead girth exceeds the formula girth by .72" Notice how closely the dead girth reductions match. What's really amazing is here we have two dead muskies over 50 lbs. with substantially different shapes (girth to length ratios), .5377 for Gelb's muskie and .50 for Seeberger's muskie, and yet the divisor of 840 works very well on both of them. Seeberger...29" x 29" x 58" / 840 = 58.069 lbs. Actual dead weight...58 lbs. Gelb...28.5" x 28.5" x 53" / 840 = 51.249 lbs. Actual dead weight...51.125 lbs. Now that we have a divisor that works on these two highly scrutinized 50 + lb. DEAD muskies, the next step is to determine a workable divisor for released muskies. LR: "As I have noted before on three fish this past December, the Standard Formula greatly overstated fish weighed before release on an IGFA Certified scale: One calculated 55 pounds via formula and weighed 49 One calculated 58+ pounds via formula and weighed 51 One calculated 63.66 pounds via formula and weighed 58" The average overestimation of these muskies was 6.22 lbs. and almost half of this is do to the inherent weakness of the 800 divisor as is shown in the examples below. Seeberger...29" x 29" x 58" / 800 = 60.97 lbs. (2.97 lbs. overstated)...Actual weight 51.125 lbs. Gelb...28.5" x 28.5" x 53" / 800 = 53.81 lbs. (2.685 lbs. overstated.)...Actual weight 58 lbs. 6.22 lbs - 2.97 lbs. = 3.25 lbs. 6.22 lbs. - 2.685 lbs. = 3.535 lbs. Average...3.39 lbs. So how much additional girth would account for the additional 3.39 lbs? About .900". The .75" that Warren uses simply will not account for an additional 3.39 of weight. So my revised formula for released muskies over 50 lbs. is as follows: G x G x L / 894 So I would say the girth on Seebergers LIVE muskie was 29.9". 29.9" x 29.9" x 58" / 894 = 58 lbs. My formula does not require any girth adjustment after measuring the girth on a live muskie as Warren's does. Simply measure the girth on the fish while alive and use the 894 divisor because the live girth will be about .900" larger than after the fish dies. I will guarantee you that my formula will work better on 50 lb. + released muskies than any formula currently in existence. After all, NONE of the current formulas work on the Seeberger and Gelb muskies and I'm confident that this formula would also work well on the other three examples provided by Larry. If you guys feel there's more work to be done have at it. In my opinion there's been years of time spent on this that should have taken only a day at most. NO formula is going to come within a pound of every muskie so why bother with this in the first place? How accurate are the live girth measurements on muskies over 50 lbs.? Tom Gelb admitted he could not get an accurate measurement because the fish was sliding all over the place but yet we are supposed to take other peoples live measurements as gospel. | |||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | What about Crawford's LxG/25-10? It's close, though understated, on both of the fish above. How does it work on some known live girth and weights? Based on the estimated live girth above of 29.9 it comes in very close though slightly over the "official weight". However, given fluid and slime loss from water to weighing and knowing the fish was actually over 58# it's probably very close to live weight. Edited by Will Schultz 4/26/2013 1:39 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Whoa...how did you go from 840 to 894? Seeberger...29" x 29" x 58" / 840 = 58.069 lbs. Actual dead weight...58 lbs. Gelb...28.5" x 28.5" x 53" / 840 = 51.249 lbs. Actual dead weight...51.125 lbs. There you advocate using 840 in the denominator, and I follow your logic there. Then you show how the '800' value used historically overestimates the weight of a fish...and I follow you there as well. But then, seemingly out of the blue, you shift to using '894' in the denominator. Why? It appears to me as though you did this to support up your assumption regarding the live girth of Mr. Seeberger's fish. Was that 29.9" girth value reported somewhere, and maybe I simply missed it? The only girth I heard was 29". So I think the FIRST thing to do here, would be to get an accurate idea of just how much of a difference there is between live and dead girth--and (if possible) what accounts for that difference. Is it truly the swim bladder? I think this is important because it might be possible to build that factor into any software model developed, perhaps as a function of length (which should not change). Incidentally, there is a power function used now by biologists, to estimate weight based upon the independent length variable: W = a(L)^b (Where 'W' is weight in grams, and 'L' is length in millimeters) But the problem with this is that the values 'a' and 'b' are estimated from measurements of other fish in the system. So unless you wanted to build a database of all the values by water body, they aren't going to be terribly useful. Quite frankly, I seriously doubt that they are even available for the majority of the fisheries across the range of the muskellunge. So this is a fairly complicated issue, and thus I seriously doubt we can just plug-n-chug different values for a denominator, and have it apply across the entire range of these fish. Does the '840' value work better for the two fish you mentioned in your last post? It seems to, yes. But to simply switch to that value without any explanation of *why* the change works, is to introduce bias into the process...and (dare I say) a bit presumptuous. It's maybe even a bit arrogant. It may be a good start, but I am not ready to run it up the flagpole for everyone to salute. TB | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | George: You are correct re the Wilkinson deductions, my bad! Now that you have a formula the does not require a girth deduction, but rather a further increased divisor, you are getting somewhere! Very good so far. I agree in part with your last comment/paragraph: "If you guys feel there's more work to be done have at it. In my opinion there's been years of time spent on this that should have taken only a day at most. NO formula is going to come within a pound of every muskie so why bother with this in the first place? How accurate are the live girth measurements on muskies over 50 lbs.? Tom Gelb admitted he could not get an accurate measurement because the fish was sliding all over the place but yet we are supposed to take other peoples live measurements as gospel." Too bad you weren't involved years ago when many bright folks were trying to work this out...could have saved us many days/hours/ of grief! As for the accuracy of "live girth measurements" on fish over 50 pounds (or any size for that matter) I concur. They are only as good as the persons/persons doing the measuring. Mr. Gelb was alone in a very cold and tough situation, hence his difficulty. And lastly you get to the crux of the matter..."taking other peoples measurements as gospel". Nuff said there. As I prefer weighing the "super fish", we still must rely on those doing the weighing...but at least if they "fudge" intentionally, they know it...using a bad formula they either do not OR they are massaging their ego's! Oh, and by the way, you have the live weight of the two fish transposed in your second example. Will: Your question is part of "going back to the drawing board" unless George has saved us that exercise. Tom: As I noted above, George dropped the girth reduction and thereby developed a new divisior that works at least on the two examples. Simpler = better. Still more work needs be done. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |